# SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 10 S.C.R. 537
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-09-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, J. B. Pardiwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/satish-chandra-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-35606
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

Service Law - Appointment - Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form - Dismissal of
the appellants from service - Correctness of - Held: In case of
appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 20860 of
2019, what led to the termination of his services was not his
involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in
which he was acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld
relevant information while filling in the verification Form - Appellant
was given appointment on probation subject to the verification of
facts given in the verification Form - Therefore, if an enquiry
revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent was at
liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant - In the
connected Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 5170 of 2021, the
appellant had put in about four years of service before he came to
be terminated, however the said appeal also fails on the very same
line of reasoning - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965 - r.5 - CRPF Act, 1949 - Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955 - r.27.
Service Law - Appointment - Public employment - Criminal
Antecedents - Suppression of information or submitting false
information in the verification Form - Principles of law to be made
applicable to such litigations - Held: Each case should be scrutinised
thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated
officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force,
who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness,
since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to
society's security - Even in a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate - Further, acquittal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post - It would be still open to the employer to
consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate
concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post -
Generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the
candidates leading to condonation of the offenders conduct, should
not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
Service Law - Appointment - Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form - Criminal
prosecution, arrest or pendency of a criminal case - Precedent of
Avtar Singh case - Position of law post Avtar Singh - Discussed.
Constitution of India - Article 136 - Scope of appeal under
- Held: Unless, it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been
done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity
to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, Supreme Court
would not exercise its overriding powers u.Article 136(1) - The
wide discretionary power invested u/Article 136 is to be exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The only reason to refer to and look into the
various decisions rendered by this Court over a period of time is
that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are
bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case
of Avtar Singh different courts have enunciated different
principles. In such circumstances, this Court has undertaken
some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should
be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The
principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public
employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so,
in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a
duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability
to inspire pub

## Text

_Characters 0–39,923 of 129,877. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39923 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
 [2022] 10 S.C.R. 537
537
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Service Law - Appointment - Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form - Dismissal of
the appellants from service - Correctness of - Held: In case of
appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 20860 of
2019, what led to the termination of his services was not his
involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in
which he was acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld
relevant information while filling in the verification Form - Appellant
was given appointment on probation subject to the verification of
facts given in the verification Form - Therefore, if an enquiry
revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent was at
liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant - In the
connected Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 5170 of 2021, the
appellant had put in about four years of service before he came to
be terminated, however the said appeal also fails on the very same
line of reasoning - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965 - r.5 - CRPF Act, 1949 - Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955 - r.27.
Service Law - Appointment - Public employment - Criminal
Antecedents - Suppression of information or submitting false
information in the verification Form - Principles of law to be made
applicable to such litigations - Held: Each case should be scrutinised
thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated
officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force,
who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness,
since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to
society's security - Even in a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate - Further, acquittal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post - It would be still open to the employer to
consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate
concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post -
Generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the
candidates leading to condonation of the offenders conduct, should
not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
Service Law - Appointment - Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form - Criminal
prosecution, arrest or pendency of a criminal case - Precedent of
Avtar Singh case - Position of law post Avtar Singh - Discussed.
Constitution of India - Article 136 - Scope of appeal under
- Held: Unless, it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been
done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity
to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, Supreme Court
would not exercise its overriding powers u.Article 136(1) - The
wide discretionary power invested u/Article 136 is to be exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The only reason to refer to and look into the
various decisions rendered by this Court over a period of time is
that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are
bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case
of Avtar Singh different courts have enunciated different
principles. In such circumstances, this Court has undertaken
some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should
be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The
principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public
employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so,
in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a
duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability
to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security.
[See Raj Kumar]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal
case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment
to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is
suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a
false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest,
prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character,
conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the
employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to
the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the
post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects
and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders'
0conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be
avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority
concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the
Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the
Authority concerned was fair and reasonable? [Paras 68, 69][586G-H; 587-A-G]
Avatar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
[2016] 7 SCR 445; Commissioner of Police v. Raj
Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 - referred to.
2. Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme
Court to grant special leave in its discretion against any judgment,
decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal except by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed
forces. The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 is divisible into
two stages: the first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for the
special leave to file an appeal and the second stage commences,
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
if and when, the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave
petition is converted into an appeal. Thus, the principles of law
discernible from the aforesaid are that unless, it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and
grave injustice have been done and the case and question present
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding
powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide
discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article
136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
[Paras 70, 71 & 75][587-G-H; 588-C-D; 592-E-F]
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169:[1950] SCR
453; P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Another,
(1980) 3 SCC 141 : [1980] 2 SCR 873 - followed.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 :
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v.
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.,
(2019) 4 SCC 376 : [2019] 3 SCR 411; Hem Raj, Son
of Devilal Mahajan of Bijainagar, Condemned Prisoner,
at Present Confined in the Central Jail, Ajmer v. State
of Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 462 : [1954] SCR 1133 - relied
on.
3.1 In so far as the Appeal arising out of the Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 20860 of 2019 filed by 'SCY' is concerned, the
same should fail. This Court is not at all convinced with the case
put forward by 'SCY' for informing the respondent herein that
there was no criminal case pending against him on the date he
filled up the verification form. The explanation offered by 'SCY'
is nothing but his own understanding of what is prosecution and
pendency of a criminal case. If he knows that trial is deemed to
have commenced with the framing of charge, then he knows and
understands what is criminal prosecution. Indisputably, 'SCY' was
still under probation at the time, his services had been terminated.
It is also apparent from the record that 'SCY' had been given
appointment on probation subject to the verification of facts given
in the verification Form. Therefore, if an enquiry revealed that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
the facts given were wrong, the respondent herein was at liberty
to dispense with the services of the appellant 'SCY' as the
question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would
not arise. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination
of the services of the appellant 'SCY' is not his involvement in
the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he had
been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld
relevant information while filling in the verification Form. He could
be said to have exhibited or displayed such a tendency which
shook the confidence of the respondent. Administrative law has
traditionally approached the review of decisions classified as
discretionary separately from those seen as involving the
interpretation of rules of law. The rule has been that the decisions
classified as discretionary may only be reviewed on limited
grounds such as the bad faith of decision-makers, the exercise of
discretion for an improper purpose, and the use of irrelevant
considerations. A general doctrine of "unreasonableness" has
also sometimes been applied to the discretionary decisions. These
doctrines incorporate two central ideas - those discretionary
decisions, like all other administrative decisions, must be made
within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statutory
rules, but that considerable deference will be given to the decisionmakers by the courts in reviewing the exercise of that discretion
and determining the scope of the decision-makers' jurisdiction.
These doctrines recognise that it is the intention of a legislature,
when using statutory language that confers broad choices on the
administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere
with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to the
decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion
was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a
manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of
manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with
the principles of the rule of law. [Paras 76-78][592-F-H; 593-AG]
3.2 The learned ASG has rightly relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan in which this Court held that the purpose of requiring
an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/
conviction, etc. in the verification Form was to assess his character
and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
in service; that suppression of material information and making
a false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution
and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the
employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to
the matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the
post, he could be terminated from service during the period of
probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it
clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the
ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether
a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved
in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the
employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer. The observations
in the aforesaid case are fully applicable to the appeal filed by
'SCY'. It was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant
'SCY' to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission
which has led to the termination of his service during the probation
period. So far as the connected Appeal arising out of the Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 5170 of 2021 filed by 'PKY' is concerned,
the same also fails on the very same line of reasoning. The only
difference in the case of the appellant 'PKY' is that he had put in
about four years of service before he came to be terminated.
[Paras 79-82][593-H; 594-A-F]
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan
Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 : [2003] 2 SCR 361 - relied
on.
Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1
SCC 1; Union of India and Others v. M. Bhaskaran,
AIR (1996) SC 686 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526; Delhi
Administration, v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 :
[1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 199; Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 169 :
[2009] 16 SCR 237; R. Radhakrishnan v. Director
General of Police and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 660 :
[2007] 11 SCR 456; Union of India and Others v. Bipad
Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314 : [2008] 8 SCR
99; State of Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Kumar (2008)
(3) SCC 222 : [2008] 1 SCR 281; Daya Shankar Yadav
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
v. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 103 :
[2010] 13 SCR 1076; Commissioner of Police and
Others. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011]
3 SCR 964; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl.
Sec. Home and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6
SCR 1047; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others,
(2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Commissioner
of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh,
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union
Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v.
Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
[2018] 1 SCR 112; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
v. Bunty, (2020) 17 SCC 654; State of Rajasthan and
Others v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774; Union
of India (UOI) v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, (2022) 6 Scale
108; Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 532; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021)
10 SCC 136; Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra
and Others (2019) 17 SCC 696 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 7 SCR 445
referred to
Para 8
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526
referred to
Para 37
[1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 199
referred to
Para 39
[2003] 2 SCR 361
relied on
Para 40
[2009] 16 SCR 237
referred to
Para 42
[2007] 11 SCR 456
referred to
Para 44
[2008] 8 SCR 99
referred to
Para 45
[2008] 1 SCR 281
referred to
Para 46
[2010] 13 SCR 1076
referred to
Para 48
[2011] 3 SCR 964
referred to
Para 50
[2012] 6 SCR 1047
referred to
Para 52
[2016] 7 SCR 445
referred to
Para 54
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
[2013] 13 SCR 432
referred to
Para 54
[2018] 1 SCR 112
referred to
Para 58
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
relied on
Para 71
[2019] 3 SCR 411
relied on
Para 71
[1950] SCR 453
followed
Para 72
[1954] SCR 1133
relied on
Para 73
[1980] 2 SCR 873
followed
Para 74
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6955
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1167 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal No.6956 of 2022.
Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, C. K. Bhatt,
Himanshu Gautam, M. M. Singh, Jitendra Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Merusagar Samantray, Ms. B. Sunita
Rao, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Raghav Sharma, A. K. Sharma, B. V. Balaram
Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. B. PARDIWALA, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned matters are almost
the same and the principles of law applicable are also common, those
were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
3. We first take up the Appeal arising out of the Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019
4. This appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant
of a writ application being the Writ Petition (C) No. 1167 of 2018 filed in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
the High Court of Delhi and is directed against the judgment and order
dated 15.04.2019 by which a Division Bench of the High Court rejected
the writ application filed by the writ applicant (appellant herein) thereby
affirming the dismissal of the appellant herein from service as a Constable
(General Duty) with the CRPF.
5. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as
under:
5.1 The appellant herein was serving as a Constable (General
Duty) with the CRPF. He was recruited as a temporary employee of
the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 28.07.2014. After undergoing
the basic training, he reported at the 179th Battalion on 17.12.2015.
5.2 While filling up the requisite verification Form-25 at the time
of his recruitment in the CRPF in Column 12 in response to the question
whether any case was pending against him, the appellant answered in
the negative.
5.3 Thereafter, under Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, the Character
and Antecedents verification Form of the appellant was sent to the
Collector, District Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Collector, vide
his letter dated 25.02.2015, informed the Deputy Inspector General of
Police (DIGP), Group Centre, CRPF Rampur that the Criminal Case
No. 1015 of 2008 had been registered against the appellant herein at the
P.S. Khalilabad Sant Kabir Nagar, Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 resply of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). Upon receipt of the information as
aforesaid, the services of the appellant herein came to be terminated in
exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide the order dated 11.03.2016
on the ground that he had concealed the information as aforesaid while
filling up the Form-25.
5.4 The further appeal addressed by the appellant herein to the
Inspector General (IG) was also dismissed.
5.5 The appellant herein challenged his dismissal from service by
filing the Writ Petition (C) No. 10558 of 2016 in the High Court of Delhi.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High
Court on 25.09.2017 remitting the matter to the Revisionary Authority
for fresh consideration within a period of six weeks from the date the
appellant herein would make a representation.
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
5.6 The representation filed by the appellant herein ultimately came
to be rejected and a fresh order dated 05.01.2018 reiterating the
termination of the appellant's services was passed.
5.7 The appellant herein once again preferred a fresh Writ Petition
(C) No. 1167 of 2018 challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2018
terminating his services.
5.8 The High Court rejected the writ petition vide order dated
15.04.2019 holding as under:
"9. The fact remains that FIR No. 1015/2008 was registered
at P.S. Khalilabad against the Petitioner and placed under
Sections 147/323/324/504/506 IPC. Admittedly, the Petitioner
got bail in the above Criminal case which was for cognizable
offences. It is not therefore the case where the time of filing
up of the verification form-25 the Petitioner was not aware
of the pendency of the Criminal case against him.
x x x
11. In the present case, on the date of filling up of the
verification form the criminal case against the Petitioner was
very much pending. The fact that the charge sheet had been
filed after the filling up the form will not make any difference
to the fact that the Petitioner deliberately gave a wrong answer
to the question whether any case was pending against the
Petitioner. This could not be termed as innocent. The Petitioner
is applying for the post of Constable in a para military
organization and is expected to be truthful in all responses to
the columns in the verification form. At the time of filling up
of that form the Petitioner was very much aware of the
pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, there could be no
excuse for not filling up the correct answer in response to the
question under Column 12.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no reason
to interfere with the impugned order of the DA which was
confirmed by the AA."
6. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here
before this Court with the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
7. Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that the High Court committed a serious
error in passing the impugned order. She would submit that the prosecution
against the appellant was of a very trivial nature. It did not involve any
moral turpitude. The suppression, if at all believed, by itself, cannot be a
ground to deny public employment. It was argued that the appellant had
no knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case on the date when the
verification Form was filled up. She submitted that for the purpose of
determining whether the suppression was with a guilty mind, the
attestation/verification Form should be very specific and not vague so as
to confuse the person filling up such Forms. It was further argued that at
the relevant point of time, the appellant was 19 years of age. The criminal
prosecution against him along with the others was on account of a family
dispute. The appellant had been falsely arrayed as an accused in the
said case. There was a settlement between the parties before the local
village panchayat. Ultimately, the appellant herein along with the other
co-accused came to be acquitted by the trial court.
8. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC
471 to fortify her submission that while passing the order of termination
of services for giving false information, the employer must take notice
of the special circumstances of the case, if any. The High Court, in the
first round of litigation, had taken notice of such non-application of mind
and thought fit to remit the case for fresh consideration. It was argued
that even upon fresh consideration, the Authority committed the very
same mistake while reiterating the termination.
9. In the last, the learned counsel submitted that the High Court
failed to consider an important question of fact that the Form CRP- 25
was quite vague and not specific about the information in regard to the
criminal antecedents. It is on account of such vagueness that the appellant
was not able to understand the question in a proper manner and answered
the same accordingly which is now being treated as false information.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
prays that there being merit in her appeal, the same may be allowed and
the impugned order passed by the High Court may be set aside and the
appellant may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
11. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed
by Ms. Madhavi Divan, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitting
that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been
committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. She would
submit that the appellant is guilty of "suppression" of material facts which,
by itself, was sufficient to terminate his services. It was argued that the
services of the appellant herein were terminated because he was found
guilty of submitting false information or to put in other words, guilty of
suppression of material facts. The learned ASG vehemently submitted
that the appellant herein not only suppressed information about his arrest
but also suppressed the information about the criminal case which was
pending against him at the time he filled up the verification Form.
12. The learned ASG further submitted that the appellant herein
and the other co-accused were not honourably acquitted. They all came
to be acquitted as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The learned
ASG, while relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra), more particularly, the para 38.4 therein submitted that
the Authority concerned is duty bound to take into account the gravity of
the offence in a situation where acquittal is not recorded at the time of
filling up of the verification Form.
13. It was argued that in a disciplined force which seeks to maintain
high standards of integrity the suppression of material facts cannot be
countenanced.
14. In the last, the learned ASG submitted that the judicial review
under Article 136 of the Constitution in matters pertaining to the suitability
of a candidate is limited to the extent of determining if the Authority
concerned had acted with malice, mindlessness or gross illegality. She
placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 to fortify
her submission that the scope of judicial review in the matters of the
present type is very limited. She placed reliance on the following
observations made by this Court:
"28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess
the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post.
Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials),
or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts'
decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power
of determining suitability of an individual for appointment.
This was emphasised by this Court in M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC
[M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 : (2008) 1 SCC
(L&S) 409] which held as follows : (SCC pp. 131, 135-36,
paras 21 & 30)
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection
of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the
Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the
ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory
rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to
examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee
like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to
the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court
of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is
the business of the court to examine each candidate and
record its opinion. ...
x x x x
31. Public service - like any other, presupposes that the State
employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should
enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential
aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of
attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute
eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant
aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the
Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are
fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a nondiscriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely
different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is
greatest, as long as the process of decision-making is neither
illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides."
15. The learned ASG also placed strong reliance on the decision
of this Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda,
(2022) 1 SCC 1, more particularly, in the following observations as under:
"17. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as
per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar Singh case [Avtar
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC
(L&S) 425] , it is clear that the employer is having right to
consider the suitability of the candidate as per government
orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for
induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on
technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious
nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have
a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the
antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration
regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee,
still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate."
16. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned ASG
prayed that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.
Analysis
17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any
error in passing the impugned order?
18. The following facts are not in dispute:
a)
The verification Form was filled up by the appellant on
02.09.2014.
b)
A First Information Report was registered against the
appellant herein and others on 26.05.2008 for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 506
resply of the IPC.
c)
Upon registration of the FIR on 26.05.2008, the appellant
herein filed two applications in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, one application seeking to
surrender himself before the Court in connection with the
FIR referred to above and the second application seeking
for regular bail.
d)
It appears that the appellant upon surrendering before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate was taken in deemed judicial
custody with effect from 06.06.2008 and was ordered to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
be released on bail on 10.06.2008. It appears that the
appellant was not actually put behind bars as asserted by
the appellant.
e)
At the end of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed chargesheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate which culminated in the Criminal Case No. 1015
of 2008. The appellant herein and the other co-accused
were put to trial and vide the judgment and order dated
13.01.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate District
Sant Kabir Nagar came to be acquitted.
f)
At the time when the services of the appellant came to be
terminated, he was a probationer.
g)
In the verification Form, more particularly in clause 12, the
following questions are to be found:
"(a)
Have you ever been arrested?
Yes/No
(b)
Have you ever been prosecuted?
Yes/No
(c)
Have you ever been kept under detention
Yes/No
x x x x
(i)
Is any case pending against you in any Court Yes/No
of Law at the time of filling up this Verification Roll?"
19. Against all the aforesaid questions, the appellant put a tick on
"NO", as above.
20. The Authority concerned reached to the conclusion that the
appellant had not only suppressed the fact that an FIR was registered
against him but also suppressed the fact that he had surrendered before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate who, in turn, had released him on regular
bail. He also suppressed the fact that there was a Criminal Case No.
1015 of 2008 registered against him and pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate for the offences enumerated above.
21. In such circumstances, a notice was issued to the appellant
herein to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated.
Upon conclusion of the enquiry the appellant ultimately came to be
dismissed from service.
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
22. We now look into the connected Appeal arising out of the
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5170 of 2021.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5170 of 2021.
23. This appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant
of a writ application being the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9456 of 2018 filed
in the High Court of Delhi and is directed against the judgment and order
dated 04.02.2020 by which a Division Bench of the High Court rejected
the writ application filed by the writ applicant (appellant herein) thereby
affirming the dismissal of the appellant herein from service as a SubInspector/GD, 45th Battalion, CRPF.
24. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as
under:
24.1 The appellant herein was serving on the post of SI/GD with
the CRPF.
24.2 In August, 2011, the appellant had applied for the post of SI
in the CRPF pursuant to a call for applications by the Union Public
Service Commission.
24.3 As part of the said application, the appellant was required to
fill the CRP-25 verification Form. While filling up the form in August,
2011, in response to the question of whether any criminal proceeding is
pending against him in any court of law, he answered in the negative.
24.4 The appellant came to be inducted in the CRPF as an SI.
24.5 The appellant received an order dated 19.11.2015 from the
office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), Rampur, UP
whereby he was informed that an inquiry would commence on the Article
of Charge (AOC) under Section 11 of the CRPF Act r/w Rule 27 of the
CRPF Rules, 1955 that had been framed against him. The translated
version of the statement of the AOC reads as under:
"That No. 115213628 SI/GD Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, C/
45 Battalion, CRPF, while working on the post of Sub
Inspector / GD, being the member of force, has committed the
misconduct and misbehaviour, in which at the time of
recruitment, personnel gave false information in the Past
Antecedents Verification Form (CRP Form - 25) at column
No. 12 (a and b) that no case is pending against the personnel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
in any court, however before the recruitment of personnel, a
case Crime No. 261/2002 under Section 147, 149, 323, 325,
504, 506, 307 IPC was registered against him at Police Station
Khajni, District Gorakhpur (UP. Personnel, during his
recruitment, has concealed the information regarding criminal
case pending against him and misguided the department by
giving wrong information, which is an offence punishable
under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955."
24.6 By an order dated 23.09.2016, the office of the DIGP imposed
a penalty of removal from service on the applicant.
24.7 Departmental inquiry came to be conducted in which the
appellant submitted his defence statement. The Inquiry Officer submitted
his report to the Commandant, 45th Battalion, who in turn submitted it to
the DIG.
24.8 The appellant offered inter alia the following reasons in his
defence:
(i) He was entirely unaware about the pendency of a case against
him in Rampur as he "was studying outside the village."
(ii) When he met some of the co-accused, they "assured" him
that a compromise had been reached in the criminal case.
(iii) He never received any summons nor appeared before any
Court.
(iv) He could not understand the meaning of the contents of the
12(a) and (b) of the verification Form.
24.9 Upon considering the aforesaid reasons put forth by the
appellant and his response to the questions in column 12 (a) and (b) of
the verification Form, the DIGP, Rampur vide order dated 23.09.2016
imposed the penalty of removal of service on the appellant.
24.10 The appeal filed by the appellant in the office of the Inspector
General of Police (IGP), Lucknow also came to be dismissed.
24.11 The revision petition filed by the appellant in the office of
SDG also came to be rejected.
24.12 The appellant thereafter preferred the writ petition being
the Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2018 in the High Court questioning the
legality and validity of the action of removal from service.
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
24.13 The High Court adjudicated the Writ Petition and vide the
impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2020 rejected the same. The
High Court while rejecting the writ application held as under:
"26. The Court has perused all the impugned orders, which
have taken note of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's case,
as noted in the foregoing paragraphs, and arrived at the
decision to remove the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner's
contention that the Respondents in accordance with the
decision in Avtar Singh (supra) were required to factor in the
relevant facts as to his antecedents, is untenable. In order for
the Petitioner to demand that the Respondents consider his
antecedents before passing an order of termination from
service, as per paragraph 34 (4) (c) of Avtar Singh (supra),
the Petitioner's acquittal should have been before his
appointment. Admittedly, the Petitioner's case is not one of
acquittal before his appointment.
27. In any event, the order of the DA has set out detailed
reasons for rejecting every contention raised by the Petitioner
in his representation against the findings in the inquiry report.
The orders of the AA, RA as well as the DG, CRPF also do not
merely reiterate the findings of each lower authority, but offer
their reasons for affirming the penalty of removal of service,
while having regard to the CRPF Act and Rules. The Court,
therefore, is not convinced by the Petitioner's argument
alleging "non-application of mind" on the part of the
Respondents.
28. As regards the Petitioner's submission that the Respondents
had not complied with the DoPT's instructions on the handling
of anonymous/pseudonymous complaints as put forth in
several OMs issued in this regard, it bears mentioning, firstly,
that the OM dated 11th October, 2002 upon which the
Petitioner relied, which stipulated that prior concurrence of
the CVC was required to taken to look into the verifiable facts
contained in such anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, has
since been withdrawn by an OM dated 26th November, 2014.
29. Turning to OM dated 18th October 2013, paragraph 3
(iii) thereof reads as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
"(iii) If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the
administrative Ministry/Department may take cognizance
of such complaint with the approval of the competent
authority to be designated by the Ministry/Department as
per their distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint
will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning,
as the case may be. If no response is received from the
complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a
reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending
the reminder, if still nothing is heard, the said complaint
may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/
Department."
30. It must be noticed, at this juncture, that it is not the
Petitioner's case that the paragraph reproduced hereinabove
was not complied with by the Respondents. In any event, the
aforesaid paragraph 3 (iii) makes provision for the method
of ascertaining the identity of the complainant before such a
complaint may be filed as "pseudonymous." A bare perusal
of the record of the case evinces that such an attempt was
made by the Respondents by engaging in correspondence with
the SP, Gorakhpur, through which the Petitioner's involvement
in criminal proceedings was incontrovertibly established.
Indeed, nowhere has the Petitioner denied his involvement in
the case thereafter. Hence, the Respondents cannot be faulted
for relying solely on an unsubstantiated pseudonymous
complaint in proceeding against the Petitioner.
31.